Effectiveness of Continuous Passive Motion and Conventional Physical Therapy After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 3 in-hospital rehabilitation programs with and without continuous passive motion (CPM) for range of motion (ROM) in knee flexion and knee extension, functional ability, and length of stay after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). SUBJECTS: Eighty-one subjects who underwent TKA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis were recruited. METHODS: All subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups immediately after TKA: a control group, which received conventional physical therapy intervention only; experimental group 1, which received conventional physical therapy and 35 minutes of CPM applications daily; and experimental group 2, which received conventional physical therapy and 2 hours of CPM applications daily. All subjects were evaluated once before TKA and at discharge. The primary outcome measure was active ROM in knee flexion at discharge. Active ROM in knee extension, Timed "Up & Go" Test results, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire scores, and length of stay were the secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: The characteristics of and outcome measurements for the subjects in the 3 groups were similar at baseline. No significant difference among the 3 groups was demonstrated in primary or secondary outcomes at discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results of this study do not support the addition of CPM applications to conventional physical therapy in rehabilitation programs after primary TKA, as applied in this clinical trial, because they did not further reduce knee impairments or disability or reduce the length of the hospital stay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".